The Finnish appeals court announced Wednesday that it has upheld a district court decision to fine Perussuomalaiset (PS) Kotka city councillor Freddy van Wonterghem for inciting ethnic hatred.

While Van Wonterghem is a small fry in the anti-immigration party, far-right PS MP James Hirvisaari blew his stack by slamming the appeals court decision on his Facebook page as “sick, sick.”

“The Kouvola appeals court would end up under sea but it’s lucky that it will even be transferred to Kuopio,” Hirvisaari wrote. “So lawyers are in favor of whipping to death a raped girl. There’s no other way that [van Wonterghem’s] sentence can be understood.”

It is surprising that Hirvisaari and van Wonterghem, who have built their political careers on spreading hate speech, are now upset that it’s legal pay-back time. Without the PS party, social media and Hirvisaari’s hate speech, it’s doubtful that this railroad engineer would have ever been elected to parliament.

Van Wonterghem commented on a blog entry written by Migrant Tales that he had no regrets about what he wrote in the summer of 2011. He said that if a Muslim girl would die it was a good matter since it would be one less woman giving birth to a member of that religious group.

Hirvisaari, who belongs to the legal committee of parliament, said on Uusi Suomi that deputy state prosecutor Jorma Kalske and state prosecutor Mika Illman were “politically corrupt.”

Kalske laughed off Hirvisaari’s claim.

“I can’t remember during my 40-year career of ever hearing an MP that is a member of the legal committee using this type of langauge against the judicial authorities,” he said.

The chairman of the legal committee, Anne Holmlund of the National Coalition Party, doesn’t consider it appropriate for a member of the legal committee or MP to criticize Finland’s legal system in the way that Hirvisaari does.

Are you saying that Van Wonterghem’s comment wasn’t out of the line and illegal? What if Prime Minister of Russia would say “if Finnish girl would die it was a good matter since it would be one less woman giving birth to the people of that nation”?

Are you saying that Van Wonterghem’s comment wasn’t out of the line and illegal? What if Prime Minister of Russia would say “if Finnish girl would die it was a good matter since it would be one less woman giving birth to the people of that nation”?

There was nothing illegal in Freddy’s comment. He was only saying his personal opinion. That is not inciting hatred. Any judge who decides that it was, is corrupted and is breaking law themselves.

How can any sensible person think that saying an opinion should be illegal?

If you expressed your unsupported opinion in a public forum that the Prime Minister had solicited and accepted a bribe in return for favouring a private business venture, then you would initiate a legal process that would leave your bank balance several thousand euros lighter.

If you expressed your unsupported opinion (even in a private telephone call to an airline employee) that there was a bomb on board a long-haul aircraft that had just taken off from Helsinki-Vantaa International Airport, causing that aircraft to land in Tallinn or St. Petersburg instead of flying to its destination in South Asia or the Far East, then you would again find yourself seriously out of pocket and probably spending some time in a correctional facility as well.

Van Wonterghem expressed the view that the death of young Moslem woman was a good thing because it eliminated a potential Moslem mother who might otherwise bring children into the world. The Appeal Court of Kouvola has now upheld a District Court judgement that this constituted the criminal offence of ethnic agitation, as defined in section 10 of Chapter 11 of the Finnish Penal Code:

If you expressed your unsupported opinion in a public forum that the Prime Minister had solicited…

If you expressed your unsupported opinion (even in a private telephone call to an airline employee) that there was a bomb on board a long-haul aircraft…

Very lousy examples. In both of these cases the “opinion” is targeted at someone. In first one against prime minister and in second case it is causing trouble in the airfield. Therefore, there are victims in your examples. Therefore the should be also consequences.

In Freddys case there was no victim that would suffer from his opinion said out in public.

Notice any difference? Victim vs. no victim?

Van Wonterghem expressed the view that the death of young Moslem woman was a good thing because it eliminated a potential Moslem mother who might otherwise bring children into the world.

Actually Freddy didn’t say that. Freddy very clearly said out his contempt of the case that a raped girl was then murdered.

Then he said that “IF you want to find something positive in this case, that is there is one less person to give birth to muslims”. Therefore it is simply is own opinion about muslims and there should be nothing wrong in saying it out loud. There is no victim there.

What is most interesting in this case is that flowerhats and people like you have absolutely no problems in the actual situation where muslims are murdering muslim girls. But instead you get all crazy if some individual PS member says something “bad” about muslims.

As an example, if there was a group of XXXXians fighting and killing each other and then someone would say something about “well at least they are decreasing their population”, you would have no problem with the killings, but you would condemn the person who said that opinion. How sick is that?

There are clearly two victims in this case: the murdered girl and Muslims. Your idea that because a specific Muslim isn’t named that there is no victim is the complete opposite of the truth. If a specific person is named, it excludes everyone else, but by referring to all Muslims, clearly all Muslims become the target of that hatred he expressed.He makes no effort to identify these as Muslims with extreme beliefs. The man is scum and it’s his ilk that are creating a dangerous climate in Finland.

There was nothing illegal in Freddy’s comment. He was only saying his personal opinion.

I provided examples of how the expression of a personal opinion can be damaging in various ways. Ethnic agitation is also damaging, and as Mark points out, it is not a victimless crime. Ethnic agitation may also be readily construed as collective defamation.

There are nevertheless plenty of offences on the Finnish statute book that do not involve or require any individual victim as such. Overstaying a visa or visa exemption period is one of these. The mere act of remaining in Finland beyond the expiry date of a visa or residence permit has no identifiable victim. What does it matter if a tourist remains in Finland for nine months after securing a visa for only three months? Who gets hurt?

Like many personal safety laws, the law requiring the use of seat belts in motor vehicles also criminalises an offence with no victim in the ordinary sense. How can the law stipulate an offence of driving without insurance, even when no accident or damage has occurred? Running a red light when the junction is clearly deserted in all directions causes no danger and has no victim, but is still an offence.

A person who brews alcohol, psychotropic substances or other controlled narcotics from products that are freely and lawfully available in Finland also commits a criminal offence, even if the products are for personal use only. Mere possession of the unconsumed product may already be an offence.

By the way, there is no material difference between my account of van Wonterghem’s offence and your account. Focus on the simple declarative proposition that is contained in your hypothetical. What did van Wonterghem specifically describe as “something positive”?

It is really quite evident that van Wonterghem broke the Finnish law that criminalises ethnic agitation, and I am sure that his lawyer never suggested to the District Court or to the Court of Appeal that the offence does not exist or is impossible to commit.

Perhaps you should volunteer as defence counsel as he prepares his appeal to the Supreme Court. What kind of fool could ever refuse such an offer?

He has every right to express his hatred his hate against muslims. Every human should have right to hate whoever they want. It is very dangerous if authorities start to controls what people can think and feel.

Even if he expressed his hate in public that was in no way inciting hatred. That law should only be used in cases where someone actually suggest other people to commit something (criminal) against some people. Now that was not the case.

Justice Demon

Perhaps you should volunteer as defence counsel as he prepares his appeal to the Supreme Court. What kind of fool could ever refuse such an offer?

I am not a lawyer so what is your point?

The corruption of our justice system is much more severe problem in Finland than racism.

I think it is understandable that he would be outraged at the rape and murder of a young woman, but to turn that outrage into blind hatred expressed indiscriminently towards millions of INNOCENT Muslims in such a way that will also incite and encourage similar hatred in others is dispicable, and an evil in itself.

I would hate to live in a society where that was tolerated. We have lived and sadly still live with that kind of evil in the world, and it gives us genocide, holocausts, slavery and who knows how many crimes against innocent people whose only error was to belong to a group that had been vilified by exactly the kind of morally corrupt man you are defending.

Tell me that van Wonterghem is famous in Finland for defending the rights of women and campaigning against rape? You are saying he says these things because he cares about women? Show me the evidence? If there isn’t any, then he is revealed as the lowest of the low, a scumbag criminal trading on hatred and bitterness for his own political aggrandisement.

The corruption of our justice system is much more severe problem in Finland than racism.

Now this comes from someone who just advised us that van Wonterghem committed no criminal offence, because he was only expressing an opinion. That’s a legal opinion. Not a particularly good one, but a legal opinion nevertheless.

It comes from someone who just advised us that the Finnish judiciary is corrupt. That is also a legal opinion, and insofar as it concerns van Wonterghem’s case in particular, it also could well satisfy the elements of the offence of criminal defamation.

You have entirely failed to substantiate your assertions, Farang. Ethnic agitation is a criminal offence in Finland in the same way as any other criminal offence: through its inclusion in the Finnish Penal Code by Act of Parliament. Two judicial instances have now found that van Wonterghem infringed that statute. There is not the slightest indication that any other judge would have reached a different conclusion. The mere fact that you dislike the statute and the outcome of this case does not mean that the judges were biased. That’s like blaming Nokia for an obscene phone call.

You are normally keen to highlight criminal offences committed by immigrants, Farang. What makes this breach of an ordinary law (made by the democratically elected Parliament of Finland) any different?

You are saying he says these things because he cares about women? Show me the evidence?

I never said that. He says those things simply because he hates people being raped and murdered, like every normal sensible person does.

He never said he WANTS muslims to be murdered. He simply stated that IF one must find something positive, then it’s the fact that there is one less to give birth to muslims. That isn’t even near inciting ethnic hatred.

You and the judges have trouble in understanding what “finding positive in negative means”, so here’s an example:

Let’s say I would crash my car and die. Now someone who doesn’t like me or my opinions could say “If one must find something positive from this, then I’m glad that it was Farang that died”. Still this doesn’t even mean that this persons would want me dead. But if I am dead anyway, he sees it as a positive thing.

It’s exactly same thing in Freddys case. Only corrupted or totally biased judge can give conviction from that. This is one of those good examples why we can’t give any respect to the court.

I never said that. He says those things simply because he hates people being raped and murdered, like every normal sensible person does.

What he said was NOT normal. It was sick!

IF one must find something positive

Because he was under pressure to find a ‘positive’?

You and the judges have trouble in understanding what “finding positive in negative means”, so here’s an example:

Finding a positive goes something along the lines of finding the perpetrators, making efforts to address religious extremism and to support moderate Muslims.

What does he say, he says that at least she won’t have Muslim babies. That is sick! And you are a sick bastard for trying to defend it. I think the moderators should suspend you, because personally, I think you have crossed the line of decency and you should understand that this is not going to be tolerated on this site.

There are nevertheless plenty of offences on the Finnish statute book that do not involve or require any individual victim as such. Overstaying a visa or visa exemption period is one of these. The mere act of remaining in Finland beyond the expiry date of a visa or residence permit has no identifiable victim. What does it matter if a tourist remains in Finland for nine months after securing a visa for only three months? Who gets hurt?

There are nevertheless plenty of offences on the Finnish statute book that do not involve or require any individual victim as such. Overstaying a visa or visa exemption period is one of these. The mere act of remaining in Finland beyond the expiry date of a visa or residence permit has no identifiable victim. What does it matter if a tourist remains in Finland for nine months after securing a visa for only three months? Who gets hurt?

Exactly. That shouldn’t be a crime.

Wow! You would trash the entire Finnish immigration system. Two conclusions are possible:

What does he say, he says that at least she won’t have Muslim babies. That is sick! And you are a sick bastard for trying to defend it. I think the moderators should suspend you, because personally, I think you have crossed the line of decency and you should understand that this is not going to be tolerated on this site.

And here comes your true nature out again. You want to ban people who think differently. In your opinion human righs are selective, they are for some people, but they are not for some other people. Only people who have “correct opinions” are allowed to say them.

In your opinion human righs are selective, they are for some people, but they are not for some other people.

It IS a human right for Muslims not to have to see public figures making public statements inciting hatred against them. That is their human right. That is prescribed in Finnish law.

It is NOT your human right to defend sick racist criminal thugs on this site. If you think it is, I’d like to know the legislation under which you will be making a criminal complaint against us if you were banned.

True nature? You make me sick! I have entertained your crap for nigh on two years (and Enrique and JD for much longer) on this site and given you the privelege of responding to your often disgusting, insulting and innane comments, and you want to cry that I cannot deal with people who think differently? The evidence of that is littered throughout the thousands of comments on this site, Farang, and you know it!

I have standards, and what you are defending is particularly sick, even by your standards, and I really think a line should be drawn on what Migrant Tales is willing to tolerate.

The hypocracy of you claiming your human rights are being abused is unbelievable, especially as you refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as, quote, ‘bullshit’! Not bullshit when you face the possiblity of having your rationalisation and apology for racism shut down on a site that very squarely stands for defending human rights, even YOURS.

Now this comes from someone who just advised us that van Wonterghem committed no criminal offence, because he was only expressing an opinion. That’s a legal opinion. Not a particularly good one, but a legal opinion nevertheless.
It comes from someone who just advised us that the Finnish judiciary is corrupt. That is also a legal opinion, and insofar as it concerns van Wonterghem’s case in particular, it also could well satisfy the elements of the offence of criminal defamation.

I don’t have to be a lawyer to use common sense. You need to separate these issues: common sense and law.

Now I am not arguing about whether inciting ethnic hatred should be punished or not. Law says it should and I agree.

What the problem here is, Freddy has done something which is not inciting ethnic hatred, but corrupted judges have falsely decided that it was, so they could convict him based on that law.

That has nothing to do with law, it is just a discrace to our justice system.

It IS a human right for Muslims not to have to see public figures making public statements inciting hatred against them. That is their human right. That is prescribed in Finnish law.

Yes, but in this case nobody has incited ethnic hatred against muslims, therefore nobody has violated their human rights.

By the way, I remember that you have earlier stated that it is ok to incite ethnic hatred against Finns. How do you explain that double standard? I am referring to the case where Kaleva wrote about Finns and killing intoxicated, to which Halla-aho responded with the Somali writing.

Yes, but in this case nobody has incited ethnic hatred against muslims, therefore nobody has violated their human rights.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can think this was not inciting hatred.

His response to a woman’s rape and murder was that at least she would not be able to have any Muslim babies. If you cannot see the hatred in that, or the emotional hurt that it would have for Muslims, for mothers, for rape victims, and for any decent person appaled at what happened to her, then you need a psychiatric evaluation. He might as well have pissed on her grave! It was disgusting and completely lacking in any humanity. The man is scum!

By the way, I remember that you have earlier stated that it is ok to incite ethnic hatred against Finns.

So now you are going to try to lie your way out of this! Do you even remember my comments?

His response to a woman’s rape and murder was that at least she would not be able to have any Muslim babies. If you cannot see the hatred in that,

Yes, there is hatred, but that alone is not INCITING hatred. Don’t you understand it? Inciting mean that the person doing it is trying to pursue other people to hate too. That is clearly not the case. In this case he expressed only his own hatred. And that is not inciting hatred.

I’m going to hold you to that statement. van Wonterghem is a Kotka PS councilman, with a high public profile, and you think that him expressing his hatred of Muslims in this way is not inciting others to hate too?

So now you are telling me that politicians are not in the business of persuasion?

I’m going to hold you to that statement. van Wonterghem is a Kotka PS councilman, with a high public profile, and you think that him expressing his hatred of Muslims in this way is not inciting others to hate too?

No it’s not. Do you think that if any councilman would say “I hate ***cans”, that is inciting hatred? Even if they are politicians, they are allowed to say their opinions.

Did you take pleasure from his words? Did you think ‘yes, that’s a man who speaks his mind!’. Did you think ‘well, he’s right about that’, or ‘He’s got a point, the world would be better with less Muslims’.

Because if the answer is yes to any of those, then he has successfully incited hatred against a religious minority in Finland. I think it’s obvious to the average person here that he is spreading hate. The fact that he is a politician doesn’t make this a crime, it just makes it even more incomprehensible that he is tolerated by his party leadership. He should have been thrown out after that comment.

You are allowed to hate anyone you want, Farang. The issue is whether you are allowed to publicly agitate for others to adopt the same hatreds that you have. Finland has rightly deemed it a danger to social cohesion for minorities to be made vulnerable to this kind of hate speech. Not only does it inflame racial and ethnic tensions, it leads to increased victimisation of Muslims and foreigners in Finland. The effects are obvious.

How about other public figures? Actors? Singers? Are you saying that they also can’t express their hate? How about other feelings?

Hatred for what, Farang? I cannot recall any singers or actors screaming out that hate speech laws in Finland stop them expressing their hatreds. Talking through your arse as usual.

You are trying to make this into something it isn’t. This was a hate-filled remark directed specifically at a religious minority in Finland. If he wants to hate extremism, I’m sure that he would not have fallen foul of the law. If he wanted to hate these people that commited this crime, I’m sure he would not have been convicted. But to direct his frustrations in such a hateful way towards all Muslims clearly crossed the line.

You can argue that the line shouldn’t be there. But you cannot ignore that there was a line and that it wasn’t crossed. Only an imbecile would suggest his comment would not incite hatred.

Did you take pleasure from his words? Did you think ‘yes, that’s a man who speaks his mind!’. Did you think ‘well, he’s right about that’, or ‘He’s got a point, the world would be better with less Muslims’.

Because if the answer is yes to any of those, then he has successfully incited hatred against a religious minority in Finland.

Nobody has incited anything. Inciting would require that someone changes his mind because of what the person says. Meaning a person who didn’t hate muslims starts to hate muslims after he read what Freddy wrote.

Freddy was not agitatig. He never even hinted that someone else should start to think like what he wrote.

Arguments are wasted on you Farang. You simply ignore them and repeat the same rubbish over and over. You will notice that I do actually address the points you want to bring up, but the same is not true of you.

My reply was clear. His being a public figure does not make a difference to the illegality of what he said, but only emphasises the larger consequences and also emphasises that this is a man who works in the field of persuasion, I.e. politics, and so arguing that his comments have no persuasive value is insulting the intelligence of our readers.

And once again, you ignore the rights of the people he is denigrating with his comments and instead saying what, that he is allowed to hate? That’s not an argument Farang, that’s a seletive choice of facts. We all know that he or you can hate whoever you want – it’s not not a great achievement to make hate your defining response to the world.

But when you put it into the public sphere, you have to take responsibility for it because it has the potential to do real harm. Freedom of expression does not go so far as to allow people to incite hatred towards religious and ethnic groups. YOU do not understand the law, and you have no intention of understanding it, because that would require you to take into account the rights of people you hate.

And once again, you ignore the rights of the people he is denigrating with his comments and instead saying what, that he is allowed to hate? That’s not an argument Farang, that’s a seletive choice of facts. We all know that he or you can hate whoever you want – it’s not not a great achievement to make hate your defining response to the world.

It is nobodys human right to be free of hating. You are mixing things up.

Once again in your argument it shows that you only oppose hate against religious and ethnic groups. You have never condemned hate against Finns.

You mix things up. I cannot stop you hating me but I could stop you writing that hate on the internet if it is based entirely on my religious identity or ethnicity, etc.

When the next person says that the rape and murder of a Finnish woman was a good thing because there would be less Finns in the world, I would condemn it vehemently.

If you think a Finn writing about the violence of Finnish men and asking if there is somehow a genetic link is hatred of Finns, then you are as messed up in the head as your Master. That is just looking for an excuse to try to undermine the hate speech laws in Finland. And it failed. And you dragging up the same argument again and again will not change it.

You are just lying when you say I would not condemn hate speech against Finns. When commentators here lump Finns into one bag, I have objected, several times now! And I will again. I want to see consistency. I see no gain in having a double standard here. And you are just using smear tactics to even suggest it.

You mix things up. I cannot stop you hating me but I could stop you writing that hate on the internet if it is based entirely on my religious identity or ethnicity, etc.
When the next person says that the rape and murder of a Finnish woman was a good thing because there would be less Finns in the world, I would condemn it vehemently.

That is the difference between me an you. I respect people’s freedom of speech. If someone hates me and wants to say it public, I allow it.

If someone would like to say it’s a good thing if Finns die, I allow him to say it. I don’t have to like it, but that is not a reason to take that persons freedom of speech away.

You could concentrate on the real hate speech, which is actually inciting ethnic hatred and stop picking eyes of innocent PS members.

To every intelligent person it is 100% clear that Freddys comment caused nobody to hate muslims. It actually caused hate against Freddy himself.

The only reason you are having your viewpoint is because of your bias against PS and because you are favourable for muslims.

When the situation is vice versa, like when Abu-Hanna says his hatred against Finns, you have no problem with that. And this fact, that you treat similar cases differently only based on the ethnic backgrounds make you the racist.

You are putting words completely in my mouth. Tell me in my words where I have defended hate speech against Finns, or stop lying and misrepresenting what I think about people I have never commented on. If you want me to comment on something, then bring it up. But don’t be a scumbag and attribute a prejudice to me that you have absolutely no examples of.

When we discussed Halla-ahos somali writing about them being genetically etc… you condemned that. But you didn’t condemn the writing about Finns and killing. There is your evidence of your bias. And that case also proved the corruption of our justice system.

That is your idea, now tell me what I wrote and in answer to what. You are making stuff up, Farang. That’s defamation. You can search through Google, I’m sure you can track down the comments on thProduce the evidence! vidence! Or is that just not important?

That is your idea, now tell me what I wrote and in answer to what. You are making stuff up, Farang. That’s defamation. You can search through Google, I’m sure you can track down the comments on thProduce the evidence! vidence! Or is that just not important?

It was not about what you said, but what you DIDN’T SAY. You never condemned the article in Kaleva about Finnish being genetically killers.

You never condemned the article in Kaleva about Finnish being genetically killers.

I don’t think that the Kaleva story was saying that. I’m pretty sure the author was thinking about evidence in the last decade linking aggression and propensity to drinking problems as having a genetic basis. He would be wrong to think this was a specifically Finnish thing, but I certainly don’t think he raised the argument to generate ‘hatred’ towards Finns. That seems a rather absurd and twisted argument.

But it suited J-Ha to try to make it seem like that so that he could disparage Somalis. His fundamental complaint wasn’t that there was a different standard, but that there was A STANDARD. His notion of a double standard strikes me as paranoia, built on a very distorted interpretation of the writing in Kaleva and giving no thought to context or what the real definition of hate speech is. He sees it as an obstacle to bashing on immigrants.

However, if Kaleva really intended to suggest Finns were ‘genetically killers’, as you suggest, I would condemn it outright. You perhaps forget that my children are all Finnish, Farang. I really would not tolerate that kind of hate speech against Finns. Finns are part of my family. The difference between you and I is that I extend that ‘family’ to all people. It’s easy to look after your own, but it’s wise to look after all, especially the most vulnerable minorities, of which, immigrants in Finland are most certainly a vulnerable minority.

Now, do you understand a differences between fact, opinion and example?

If Halla-aho would have presented his writing as a fact, eg. tellin people that Somalis are “this and that” then I would have agreed with the conviction.

If Halla-aho would have presented it as his opinion, then I would NOT have agreed with the conviction.

But in this case it was neither, it was just an example sentence, therefore it was not presented as a fact and not even as an opinion. It is equal to if someone writes a fictional novel about some racist and in that book the fictional character says something racist about immigrants. Would you consider that the author of the book should be convicted?

J-Ha tried to be clever and cunning. His way to discuss the law was to ‘test’ it. He even addressed the title to Finland’s Prosecutor. He took a very dubious case of a Finn writing about Finns and discussing alcohol dependency and aggression and links to genetics, where then can be very weak interpretation that it was intended as hate speech. He then attempted to use this as a cover for his own very much more obvious agenda of hate, defaming both the Muslim religion and Somali’s, in a way that was intended to make his supporters smile and avoid prosecution.

But it was such a thinly veiled attempt at real discussion of the issues and such an obvious attempt to create hate speech, with statements that every sane and sensible person understand to be defaming, that he was successfully prosecuted.

His blog post was cynical, intellectually crude, extremely insulting to both Muslims and Somali’s; pretending that it was an example was just no defense. In fact it was laughable as a defense. He was attempting very openly and clearly to make a mockery of the law. He was convicted. End of story.

But of course, you would have us believe that he actually loves Somalis and Muslims and that it was all a misunderstanding. That and a corrupt judiciary.

Give it a rest Farang. He lost. And no amount of crying will change that. He attempted to bait and mock Finland’s hate speech laws and got bitten. Tough shit. That’s what happens when you peddle hate for a living.

And back to the pantomime. You are not adding anything to this debate, Farang. So now you admit that he was NOT convicted for having thoughts and opinion but for publishing materials considered to be hate speech. We are clear about that now? You just disagree with Finland’s Supreme Court on what constitutes hate speech.

You don’t seem to understand, or you just want to dodge the obvious. I’ll try to make it more understandable:

Halla-aho was convicted because of his opinions and thoughts. BUT, because in Finland there are no laws that could be used for that, they made up the hate speech accusations and convicted him for that.

That’s what I meant with my window breaking and car theft example, but seems it was too diffucult to understand.

A wants to convict B. B hasn’t done anything that he could be convicted for. A takes something that B has done and then twists and modifies it to something else and then convicts B for that. So basically A gets what he wants and B gets convicted for something he didn’t do.

Halla-aho was convicted because of his opinions and thoughts. BUT, because in Finland there are no laws that could be used for that, they made up the hate speech accusations and convicted him for that.

I don’t know what to say to that. It sounds ridiculously paranoid. I also think that the Finnish judiciary are very keen to maintain our core democratic freedoms, so what you are saying flies in the face of the judicial and legislative goals in Finland.

It’s telling me that so much would have to be wrong with Finnish society for this to be true, when the other hypothesis is much simpler and more consistent – J-Ha broke the law on hate speech by writing and publishing vile comments about religious people and ethnic groups living in Finland. The evidence is/was there for all to see. The argument is whether or not he went too far and what he is able to say legally within the bounds of free speech. His right to free speech is weighed against the right of religious people and ethnic groupings to live without being defamed and vilified.

You don’t seem to recognise that Finnish society has decided that this kind of spreading of negative prejudice and vilification and stigmatisation of minorities is a social ill, something that is fundamentally unjust and a danger also to social cohesion. The reasons for hate speech laws are quite simple to appreciate.

Farang, you clearly value Finnish identity and Finland as your home country, and I admire you for that. But I really think you’ve put your eggs in the wrong basket by making this the highest value above all others, including a basic allegiance to a common humanity among peoples. By valuing national identity to the exclusion of all else, you actually work to build divisions within society.

I think it’s important to accept that Finland’s larger cities will become more diverse, and that rural areas will retain more of their local and national identities. This is the trend all over Europe. It’s inevitable and it’s an important stage of our development.

There was a time when there was no such thing as Finland and not even a language called Finnish – yet humans lived, created, loved and played on this planet – your ancestors, my ancestors. There is more to life than national identities. You are what you care about – national identity is a uniform, a role, a play, make-believe, a story, and then only one among thousands. The more you emphasise it, the more you separate yourself from those ‘outside’, the more likely it is that you will eventually create war. And that is the single biggest danger in this fairy tale of national character.

I think it’s important to accept that Finland’s larger cities will become more diverse, and that rural areas will retain more of their local and national identities. This is the trend all over Europe. It’s inevitable and it’s an important stage of our development.

If you look at Europe, all large cities which have experienced this have also experienced increased problems, especially racism. How do you think Finland could avoid this?

For example Netherlands. Majority of people have totally separated ethnically. Marjority of native people consider there are too many muslims and vice versa, muslims don’t respect the natives. That sounds like war is not very far away. Gays are being attacked in cities where muslim populations have increase, what have you to say for that?

It is unwanted phenomenon in Finland, if you ask the citizens. It’s just the corrupted politicians who let this happen.

If you look at Europe, all large cities which have experienced this have also experienced increased problems, especially racism. How do you think Finland could avoid this?

I don’t think there has been an increase in problems, but rather the same old problems have been ‘coloured’ by the greater diversity. Cities have always suffered high degrees of poverty, degradation and social divisions – it’s part of the life-cycle of cities, periods of growth, decay, and social neglect. If you feed a cess pit in the middle of the city, then eventually the stench gets everywhere. And I don’t mean the stench of people, but the stench of crime and deprivation.

People can so easily become ‘hidden’ in large cities. Remember, big cities are in themselves something of a challenge. Nowadays, cities have millions of inhabitants.

Also, it’s important to recognise that ‘problems’ do not define us as people, even though they have the potential to shape our life. I lived in London for 7 years, and met all sorts of people, many of whom became my friends, from all parts of the globe. People are people, at the end of the day. Yes, attitudes can clash, and politics always creates fierce debate – but the road to war is not mysterious, it comes via two avenues: when people collectively get fed up of being abused and revolt or when some people work relentlessly to increase and protect their own privilege to the detriment of the wider society, often by force, either economic or otherwise. Two sides of the same coin.

Majority of people have totally separated ethnically.

It’s not a majority. Nowhere near. And you really MUST remember that Muslims are mostly moderate, that only a very small minority are bitten by fundamentalist ideals, and then mostly young men and their charismatic male leaders, feeding off the social hiararchies. The answer is not to meet ‘like with like’. The answer is to understand what makes societies function as healthy institutions, as a structure of opportunity, and to promote that.

Gays are being attacked in cities where muslim populations have increase, what have you to say for that?

I have seen gay friends commit suicide because of harrassment by native society. You have to remember that gays have struggled against the ‘majority’ population for almost forever, and it’s still not plain sailing. Muslims are not somehow a new ‘enemy’, plenty of mainstream Christians have opposed gays. And you absolutely must remember that there are also gay Muslims, who I’m sure will work harder and harder to secure their rights to an open life and to integrate their religion and their sexuality.

It is unwanted phenomenon in Finland, if you ask the citizens. It’s just the corrupted politicians who let this happen.

Finland has had its share of social problems and divisions among its citizens (reds and whites, anybody?) I think Finns have done extremely well in the last 50 years to create an idealistic and well-functioning state, borrowing heavily from their Nordic neighbours and contributing too to the Nordic bon ami and commitment to good ‘neighbourly’ work and activity.

There is a danger with ‘fear of multiculturalism’ that it will produce a self-fulfilling prophecy. If ‘white flight’ means that native Finns start to move out of areas where there are concentrations of immigrants, then this will create a divide. If immigrants pull in too much to their own communities, then this will create a divide.

If ‘culture’ becomes a war of entitlement, then people will become protectionistic towards their culture, promoting their own and being hostile to ‘outside’ cultures. You cannot ask people to ‘give up their culture’. You can only ask that people respect the law. But don’t keep reminding immigrants about the law, because that is patronising and potentially stigmatising.

If immigrants become concentrated in particular schools, then this puts added burdens on that school system. If immigrants are discriminated against in work or their economic disadvantage is not balanced by specific enabling policies, then they will become an economic and deprived minority, which creates problems all of its owns: hopelessness, restlessness, stigma, resentment etc. It is in dark places like that that the evils of fundamentalism and riots grow.

And don’t fool yourself into thinking that Islamic militantism is the only ‘ideology’ that profits from poverty or hopelessness. In Europe, ‘seperatism’ is still the biggest ‘terroristic’ threat we face, and historically, Europe has had a brief period of peace in a long history of constant squabbles and wars. And on top of that there is a key battle between ‘economic’ values and ‘social’ values, where economics is built on whether an idea can generate interest and consumer activity, while ‘social’ values are about connectedness, freedom and self-expression.

The answer is cultural integration that is respectful and unforceful. If Finns start making stupid demands of immigrants to ‘hide’ their culture, then this will only make people dig their heels in. It’s like being held hostage – that is never going to work as a strategy. There needs to be healthy mixing, and healthy exchange and curiosity within society. Hell, that is a lot more fun and interesting than starting to get into pantomime wars of “our culture is best – oh no it isn’t – oh yes it is – oh no it isn” etc.

Your picture is too polarised, Farang, and you are feeding the nightmare that you say you fear.